गुजरात चुनाव की सीख

॥भारते भातु भारती ॥

गुजारात में नरेन्द्र मोदी नें सभी विरोधियों को एकसाथ पटखनी दी । इन विरोधियों में अपने आप को धर्म निरपेक्ष कहलाने वाले नेता जो मुसलमानों में रोष और उन्माद पैदा करके दंगे कराने को उत्सुक थे, सफल नहीं हो पाए । इन नेताओं का साथ दिया अंग्रेजी मीडिया नें । पर सभी प्रकार का अपप्रचार करने पर भी इनकी दाल नहीं गल पाई और नरेंद्रभाई के सामने उन्हें नतमस्तक होना पड़ा । इसके अतिरिक्त जेहादी और इसाई तत्वों ने भी सब प्रकार से विरोध करने का प्रयास किया । परन्तु सबको मात खानी पड़ी । आखिर नरेन्द्र मोदी में ऐसी क्या विशेषता थी जिसके कारण यह चमत्कार हो पाया ।

१. खतो नथी खावा देतो नथी : मैं न खाता हूँ न खाने देता हूँ । चुनाव के समय केवल एक बार मोदी ने यह कहा और यह वाक्य जनता में स्वीकृत हुआ क्योंकि जनता इस बात को पिछले पांच साल देख चुकी थी । इस वाक्य में छिपी है गुजरात की भ्रष्टाचार से मुक्ति की गाथा। कहा जाता है की भ्रष्टाचार ऊपर से नीचे की ओर फैलता है । जिसका अर्थ है भ्रष्टाचार का उपचार भी ऊपर से ही शुरू होता है। जब मुख्य मंत्री स्वयं भ्रष्ट नहीं होगा तो प्रशासन भी भ्रष्ट नहीं हो पायेगा। मोदी के प्रशासन की प्रशंसा आम आदमी ने भी की और व्यापारी तथा उद्योगपति ने भी की। मोदी की सफलता का यह प्रमुख कारण माना जा सकता है।

२. गुजरात की अस्मिता : मोदी कभी हिन्दू-मुस्लिम कि बात नहीं करते । न हीं जाति की राजनीती करते हैं । और न हीं कभी किसी जाति विशेष के लिए किसी छूट की बात करते हैं । मोदी केवल गुजरात और गुजराती अस्मिता की बात करते हैं । गुजरात और गुजराती में सब लोग आ जाते हैं । और इस प्रकार सबको एक सूत्र में बांध देतें हैं । पंथ और जाति की बात करने की आवश्यकता ही क्या है। यही सच्ची पंथ निरपेक्षता भी है ।

३. बिजली ,पानी और सड़क : गुजरात में २४ घंटे बिजली उपलब्ध है. कृषि के लिए पानी उपलब्ध है। बढिया सड़कें बन गयी हैं। विकास के लिए जिन मूलभूत साधनों की आवश्यकता है वह उपलब्ध हैं। प्रदेश का विकास आम आदमी के सामने है। जैसा पहले कभी नहीं हुआ। सब और समृद्धि दिखाई दे रही है। गुजरात का गौरव बढ़ रह है। लोग प्रसन्न हैं।

४ . जीतेगा गुजरात : मोदी ने गुजरात को जिताने का आह्वाहन किया। स्वयं को पीछे रखा और गुजरात को आगे। गुजराती अस्मिता को प्राथमिकता दी। गुजरात के स्वाभिमान को जगाया। और इस प्रकार गुजरातियों के मन मस्तिष्क पर छा गया।

Jesus Christ - the year of Birth

The use of the Christain calendar did not begin in 1 A.C.E. In fact the epoch was fixed by Dionysius Exiguus in 525 A.C.E. The Christian Era did not become general in Europe until the 11th century. The length of the year was taken as 365 ¼ days. In 1582 Pope Gregory ordered a reform of the calendar adopting the year of length 365.2425 which closely approximates the tropical year of 365.2422 days. In the new calendar a century year was not a leap year unless divisible by 400. Thus years 100, 200, 300 were not taken as leap years. To correct the accumulated error till 1582, 10 days were dropped. This figure of ten days is telling. If the correction was to be made from 1A.C.E. then 15 century years would have occurred out of which only three (400,800,1200) would be leap years. The correction therefore, should have been of 12 days. Why were only 10 days dropped? Some have tried to argue that the correction was made from the date of the first council of Nicaea (325 A.C.E.). But this argument is not convincing. For the Church, Date of Christ's birth would be of prime importance and the reckoning ought to begin from that date. Besides between 325 and 1582 there are 12 century years out of which three would be leap years, the correction therefore, should have been of nine days. Since the correction made was of ten days, the base year was in the third century. It is significant that earlier, the Church used an epoch from 282 A.C.E. and it seems most likely that the correction was made from this year. This is also evident from the fact that the year of correction was 1582 exactly 1300 years from the epoch. It would be therefore, reasonable to conclude that, since the year of Christ's birth was of prime importance to the Church, this year 282 was in fact the year of his birth.

मोदी की पंथ निरपेक्षता

अंग्रेजी चैनल मोदी को सांप्रदायिक और मुस्लिम विरोधी कहते नही थकते । परन्तु मोदी के वक्तव्यों को यदि देखा जाय तो निष्कर्ष इसके विपरीत निकलता है । मोदी कभी हिन्दू-मुस्लिम कि बात नहीं करते । न हीं जाति की राजनीती करते हैं । और न हीं कभी किसी जाति विशेष के लिए किसी छूट की बात करते हैं । मोदी केवल गुजरात और गुजराती अस्मिता की बात करते हैं । गुजरात और गुजराती में सब लोग आ जाते हैं । और इस प्रकार सबको एक सूत्र में बांध देतें हैं । यही सच्ची पंथ निरपेक्षता है ।

राष्ट्रिय स्तर पर भी इस नीति को अपनाने की जरूरत है । हमें भारतीयता के सूत्र में सबको बांधने की जरूरत है । हम पहले भारतीय हैं फिर कुछ और । जाति और पंथ की बात करने की जरूरत ही क्या है । केवल भारतीयता की बात करें । यही पंथ निरपेक्षता है और यही राष्ट्रवाद है । जय हिंद ।

भूगोल में राम

भूगोल में राम

इतिहास में कुछ अत्याचारी शासकों ने स्थानों के नाम जबरदस्ती बदल कर उनमें अपना नाम जोड़ दिया जैसे सिकंदर से सिकन्दरा, औरंगजेब से औरंगाबाद, अहमद से अहमदाबाद । कुछ ने जतिवाचक नाम दे दिए, जैसे पाकिस्तान में हिन्दुबाग से इस्लाम्बाग। परन्तु कुछ ऐसे भी शासक हो गए हैं जिनका नाम लोगों ने स्वेच्छा से अपना लिया और अपने नगर या ग्राम का नाम उस शासक के नाम पर रख दिया. राम ऐसे ही रजा थे जिनकी ख्याति विश्व भर में फैली हुई थी और उनके नाम से कई नगरों और गाओं के नाम सुशोभित किये गए. विश्व भर में फैले इन भौगोलिक नामों का संक्षिप्त विवरण यहाँ देखेंगे.

भारत में तो ४०० से अधिक ऐसे स्थान हैं जिनके नाम के साथ राम का नामजुडा है । अन्य देशों में राम के नाम के साथ बने भौगोलिक नामों का हम अवलोकन करेंगे . कोष्ठक में दिए गए अंक देशांतर (पूर्व) और अक्षांश (उत्तर) के हैं।

१. पाकिस्तान में : पाकिस्तानी सरकारोंने यद्यपि इसलाम के नाम पर कई भौगोलिक नामों को बदल दिया फिर भी राम के नाम से जुडे कई स्थान अज भी मिलते हैं. जैसे, रामदासपुर (७३ , ३०.२५ ), रामगढ़ (७२ , ३०.२५ ), रामचौत्र (७२ , ३०.५ ), रामदिअना (७३ , ३२ ). कोट पैरा राम (७२.५ , ३२.२५ ), राम दिवाली (७३ , ३१.५ ), राम किशन (७२ , ३४ ), रामकली (७१ , ३० ), रामलछ्मन (७३ , ३१ ), रामनिवास (७३ , ३०.५).

२. अफगानिस्तान और इरान : अफगानिस्तान और इरान में भी कई स्थान नाम राम के नाम से संबंधित हैं। जैसे राम देल काले (अफगानिस्तान ६३,३२.५), राम हुर्मोज़ (इरान ५०,३१), राम शहर (इरान ४९,३१), राम सर (इरान, ५१,३७).

३. मध्य पूर्व : राम अन्दन (सीरिया ३७,३७), राम अल अन्ज़ (सीरिया ३७,३४.७५), राम (लेबनान ३६,३४.२५), राम अल्लाह (इस्रायल ३५,३२), राम ओन (इस्रायल ३७,३२.५).

४. सर्बिया : राम (२२,४५).

५. कनाडा : राम नदी (-११०,६२).

६. बंगला देश : राम गोपाल पुर (९१,२४.५), रामकृष्णपुर (९०,२४.५), रामकृष्णपुर (२) (८९,२४), रामचन्द्रनगर (९१,२४.७५), रामनारायाणपुर (९१,२३).

७. म्यांमार (ब्रह्म्देश) : राम देनी (९३,१८), राम देव (९२,१८.२५),

८. मंगोलिया : राम कुरेसुमु (गोबी)

९. पपुआ : राम (१४८, -५)

कैलाश मानसरोवर - स्वर्ग, जन्नत और पैरेडाइज़

कैलासपर्वते राम मनसा निर्मितं परम् ।

ब्रह्मणा नरशार्दूल तेनेदं मानसं सरः ॥


ऋषि विश्वामित्र राम से कहते हैं ,

हे नरशार्दूल राम, कैलास पर्वत पर ब्रह्मदेव ने अपने मन से निर्मित किया हुआ एक विशाल सरोवर है । मननिर्मित होने के कारण इसे मानस सरोवर अथवा मानसरोवर कहते हैं ।


पुराणों में वर्णन आता है कि श्री विष्णु के पैरों से निकल कर गंगा सुमेरु पर्वत पर मानसरोवर में आती है और वहां से चार दिशाओं में चार धाराओं में विभक्त हो जाती है । सीतानदी गंधमादन पर्वत और भद्राश्व वर्ष से होते हुई पूर्व सागर में गिरती है । वंक्षु नदी (अथवा चक्षु नदी ) केतुमालवर्ष से होती हुई पश्चिमी सागर में गिरती है । भद्रा नदी उत्तर दिशा में उत्तर कुरु वर्ष से होती हुई उत्तरी सागर में गिरती है । और अलकनंदा नदी दक्षिण की ओर भारतवर्ष में होती हुई दक्षिणी सागर में गिरती है । मानसरोवर के पास ही शिव पार्वती का निवास कैलाश पर्वत अथवा शिवलोक है ।

जैन मान्यताओं के अनुसार कैलाश पर्वत ही अष्टपद पर्वत है जहाँ पर आदि तीर्थंकर श्री ऋषभदेव का परिनिर्वाण हुआ था । बौद्ध ग्रंथों में मानसरोवर को अनवतप्त कहा है और इसे पृथ्वी का स्वर्ग कहा गया है । महायान बौद्ध मानते हैं कि अमिताभ बुद्ध का निवास स्वर्ग में अर्थात 'सुखावटी' में है जहाँ से कई नदियाँ निकलती हैं ।

बाइबल में पैरेडाइज़ का जो वर्णन मिलता है वह इस स्थान से मेल खाता है । ईडन गार्डन में एक नदी बहती है जो वहां से चार भागों में विभक्त हो जाती है । ये हैं पीशुं , गीहुं , दजला और उफ्राता । ये चार नदियाँ चारों दिशाओं में जाती हैं । मिल्टन ने अपनी पुस्तक लॉस्ट पैरेडाइज़ में जो पैरेडाइज़ का वर्णन किया है उसमें पहाडियों के बीच झील और झील से निकलती हुई चार नदियाँ हैं ।

कुरान में भी जन्नत के बारे में कहा गया है कि वहाँ शुद्ध पानी का स्रोत है और कई नदियाँ निकलती हैं । इस्लामी मान्यता के अनुसार आदम अर्थात आदि मानव और प्रथम पैगम्बर भारत में ही अवतरित हुए थे और ईश्वर का पहला संदेश उन्हें यहीं मिला था ।

Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu'

॥ भारते भातु भारती ॥

Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja

The anti-Hindu historians like Romila Thapar (1) and D.N. Jha (2) have opined that the word 'Hindu' was given currency by the Arabs in the 8th century. They however, do not explain the basis of their conclusion nor do they cite any evidence in support of their claim. Even Arab Muslim writers do not make such an extravagant claim (3). Another theory propounded by European writers is that the word 'Hindu' is a Persian corruption of 'Sindhu' resulting from the Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. Even here, no evidence is cited. In fact the word Persia itself contains 'S' which should have become 'Perhia' if this theory was correct. The present paper examines the above two theories in the light of epigraphic and litereary evidence available from Persian, Indian, Greek, Chinese and Arabic sources. The evidence appears to support the conclusion that 'Hindu' like 'Sindhu', has been in use since the Vedic age and that although 'Hindu' is a modified form of 'Sindhu', its origin lies in the Saurashtran practice of pronouncing 'H' in place of 'S'.

1. Epigraphic Evidence :

The Hamadan, Persepolis and Naqsh-I-Rustam Inscriptions (4) of Persian monarch Darius mention a people 'Hidu' as included in his empire. These inscriptions are dated between 520-485 B।C।4 This fact establishes that the term 'Hi(n)du' was current more than 500 years before Christ. Xerexes, successor of Darius, in his inscriptios (4) at Persepolis, gives names of countries under his rule. The list includes 'Hidu'. Xerexes was ruling between 485-465 B.C.4 On a tomb in Persepolis, another inscription assigned to Artaxerexes (404-395 B.C.), there are three figures above which are inscribed 'iyam Qataguviya' (this is Satygidian), 'iyam Ga(n)dariya' (this is Gandhara) and 'iyam Hi(n)duviya' (this is Hi(n)du).

The Asokan inscriptions (3rd century B।C.)(5) repeatedly use expressions like 'Hida' (हिद) for 'India' and 'Hida loka' (हिद लोक) for 'Indian nation'. 'Hida' and its derivative forms are used more than 70 times in the Ashokan inscriptions. For instance in the Jaugadha, separate rock edict II, the lines 3 &4, read,

सव मुनिसा मे पजा । अथ पजाये इछमी किंति मे सवेन हितसुखेन युजेयु । अथ पजाये इछमी किंति मे सवेन हितसुखेन युजेयू ति हिदलोकिक पललोकिकेण हेवमेव मे इछ सवमुनिसेसु ।

(All men are my people. I desire for my people that they may be provided with all welfare and happiness. I desire for my people, including the people of Hind and beyond and I desire for all men.)

The Edict further, says in lines 7 & 8,
मम निमितं च धंमं चलेयु ति हिदलोकं च पाललोकं च अलाधयेयु ।

(Dhamma may be followed and and the people of Hind and beyond may be served।)

The Ashokan inscriptions establish the antiquity of the name 'Hind' for India to atleast third century B.C.

In Persepolis Pahlvi inscriptions of Shahpur II (310 A.D.) the king has the titles shakanshah hind shakastan u tuxaristan dabiran dabir, "king of Shakastan, minister of ministers of Hind Shakastan and Tukharistan".(6)

The epigraphic evidence from the Achaemenid, Ashokan and Sasanian Pahlvi records, puts a question mark on the theory about the term 'Hindu' having originated in Arab usage in the 8th century A.D. Literary evidence takes the antiquity of the word 'Hindu' back to atleast 1000 B.C. and possibly 5000 B.C.

2. Evidence from Pahlvi Avesta :

In the Avesta, Hapta-Hindu is used for Sanskrit Sapta-Sindhu (7), the Avesta being dated variously between 5000-1000 B.C. This indicates that the term 'Hindu' is as old as the word 'Sindhu'. Sindhu is a Vedik term used in the Rigveda. And therefore, 'Hindu' is as ancient as the Rigveda.

In the Avestan Gatha 'Shatir', 163rd Verse speaks of the visit of Veda Vyas to the court of Gustashp and in the presence of Zorashtra, Veda Vyas introduces himself saying 'man marde am Hind jijad' (8) - I am man born in 'Hind'. Veda Vyas was an elder contemporary of Shri Krishna (3100 B.C.).

3. Greek Usage

The Greek term 'Indoi' is a softened form of 'Hindu' where the initial 'H' was dropped as the Greek alphabet has no aspirate9. This term 'Indoi' was used in Greek literature by Hekataeus (late 6th century B.C.) and Herodotus (early 5th century B.C.) (9), thus establishing that the Greeks were using this derivative of 'Hindu' as early as 6th century B.C.

4. The Hebrew Bible :

The Hebrew bible uses 'Hodu' (10) for India, which is a Judaic form of 'Hindu'। The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is considered earlier than 300 B.C. Today's Hebrew spoken in Israel also uses Hodu for India.

5. The Chinese Testimony :

The Chinese used the term 'Hien-tu' for 'Hindu' about 100 B.C. (11). While describing movements of the Sai-Wang (100 B।C.), the Chinese annals state that the Sai-Wang went towards the South and passing Hien-tu reached Ki-Pin . Later Chinese travellers Fa-Hien (5th century A.D.) and Huen-Tsang (7th century A.D.) use a slightly modified term 'Yintu' (12) but the affinity to 'Hindu' is still retained. This term 'Yintu' continues to be used till today (13).

6. Pre-Islamic Arabic Literature :

Sair-ul-Okul(14) is an anthology of ancient Arabic poetry available in the Turkish library Makhtab-e-Sultania in Istambul. In this anthology is included a poem by Prophet Mohammed's uncle Omar-bin-e-Hassham. The poem is in praise of Mahadev (Shiva), and uses 'Hind' for India and 'Hindu' for Indians. Some verses are quoted below:

Wa Abaloha ajabu armeeman Mahadevo
Manojail ilamuddin minhum wa sayattaru
(If but once one worships Mahadev with devotion,
One will attain the ultimate salvation.)
Wa sahabi Kay yam feema Kamil Hinda e Yauman,
Wa Yakulam na latabahan foeennak Tawajjaru.
( Oh Lord grant me but one day's sojourn in Hind,
Where one can attain spiritual bliss.)
Massayare akhalakan hasanan Kullahum,
Najumam aja at Summa gabul Hindu.
( But one pilgrimage there gets one all merit,
And the company of great Hindu saints.)

The same anthology has another poem by Labi-bin-e Akhtab bin-e Turfa who is dated 2300 before Mohammed i.e. 1700 B.C. This poem also uses 'Hind' for India and 'Hindu' for Indian. The poem also mentions the four Vedas Sama, Yajur, Rig and Athar. This poem is quoted on columns in the Laxmi Narayan Mandir in New Delhi, popularly known as Birla Mandir (Temple) 8. Some verses (14) are as follows:

Aya muwarekal araj yushaiya noha minar Hinda e,
wa aradakallha manyonaifail jikaratun.
( Oh the Divine land of Hind, blessed art thou,
thou art chosen land showered with divine knowledge.)
Wahalatjali Yatun ainana sahabi akhatun jikra,
Wahajayahi yonajjalur rasu minal Hindatun.
( That celetial knowledge shines with such brilliance,
Through the words of Hindu saints in fourfold abundance.)
Yakuloonallaha ya ahlal araf alameen kullahum,
fattabe-u jikaratul Veda bukkun malam yonajjaylatun.
( God enjoins on all, follow with devotion,
path shown by Veda with divine percept.)
Wahowa alamus Sama wal Yajur minallahay Tanajeelan,
Fa e noma ya akhigo mutibayan Yobasshariyona jatun.
( Overflowing with knowledge are Sama and Yajur for Man,
Brothers, follow the path which guides you to salvation.)
Wa isa nain huma Rig Athar nasahin ka Khuwatun,
Wa asanat Ala-udan wabowa masha e ratun,
( Also the two Rig and Athar(va) teach us fraternity,
taking shelter under their lusture, dispels darkness.)

7. 'Hindu' in Sanskrit Literature :

Another doubt created by the modern day anglicized historian is that the term 'Hindu' is not found used in Sanskrit literature. This misconception can be dispelled by quoting from Sanskrit works (15) :

Meru tantra (मेरुतंत्र) (4th to 6th century A.D.) , a Shaiva text, comments on 'Hindu'।
हीनं च दूष्यत्येव हिन्दुरित्युच्चते प्रिये
(Hindu is one who discards the mean and the ignoble.)

The same idea is expressed in Shabda Kalpadruma (शब्द कल्पद्रुम ),
हीनं दूषयति इति हिन्दू ।

Brihaspati Agam (बृहस्पति आगम ) says,
हिमालयं समारभ्य यावत इन्दुसरोवरं ।
तं देवनिर्मितं देशं हिन्दुस्थानं प्रचक्षते ।।
(Starting from Himalaya upto Indu waters is this God-created country Hindustan)

Parijat Haran Natak (पारिजात हरण नाटक ) describes Hindu as,
हिनस्ति तपसा पापां दैहिकां दुष्टमानसान ।
हेतिभिः शत्रुवर्गं च स हिंदुरभिधियते ।।
(Hindu is one who with penance washes one's sins and evil thoughts and with arms destroys one's enemies.)

Madhava Digvijaya (माधव दिग्विजय ) states,
ओंकारमंत्रमूलाढ्य पुनर्जन्म दृढाशयः ।

गोभक्तो भारतगुरूर्हिन्दुर्हिंसनदूषकः ॥

(One who meditates on Omkar as the primeal sound, believes in karma & reincarnation, has reverence for the cow, who is devoted to Bharat, and abhors evil, is deserving of being called Hindu.)

8. 'Hindu' and 'Sindhu'

Another theory says that 'Hindu' originated from the Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. This does not seem to be true is evident from the fact that Sindh has not become Hind and both Sindh and Hind exist in Persian as well as Arabic. The inscriptions of Darius and Xerexes which describe India as Hi(n)du, also use the term 'Sugd' for Sogdiana. This 'Sugd' should have become 'Hugd' as per this theory. The Pahlvi inscription of Shahpur II, uses 'S' in Shakastan and Tuxaristan.

But it cannot be denied that Hindu is a form of Sindhu. It needs to be realised that this change from S to H is common in Saurashtra where Sorath becomes Horath, Somnath becomes Homnath and so on. The form Hindu is therefore, likely to have come from Saurashtra.

It should also be noted that as per Nirukta rules of grammar, in the Vedik language, replacement of S with H is permitted (17).

9. Conclusion :

Epigraphic evidence takes the antiquity of 'Hindu' back to atleast 500 B.C. Use of 'Hindu' as part of 'Hapta-Hindu' in the Avesta suggests that 'Hindu' is as old as 'Sindhu' and therefore, belongs to the Vedic age.

Regarding the origin of 'Hindu' from 'Sindhu', the Saurashtran practice of pronouncing 'H' in place of 'S' provides the answer.


REFERENCES:

Thapar, Romila., A history of India, vol 1, Harmondsworth, 1966.
Jha, D.N., Ancient India in Historical Outline, Manohar, New Delhi, 1998.
Dowson, J., The History of India as Told by its Own Historians, Low Price Publications, Delhi, 1990.
Chattopadhyaya, S., The Achaemenids and India, Munshiram Manoharlal, new Delhi, 1974.
5. पाण्डेय राजबली, अशोक के अभिलेख, ज्ञान मंडल, वाराणसी, संवत २०२२ ।
6. Herzfeld, E., Kushano-Sasanian Coins, Archaeolgical Survey of India, New Delhi, 1998.
7. Damodaran, E., India the Cradle of Mankind, Sahayog Publications, Mumbai, 1999.

8. तनसुखराम गुप्त , हिन्दू धर्म परिचय , सूर्य भारती प्रकाशन , नई दिल्ली १९९७ ।
9. Rawlinson, H.G., India and the Western World, Rai Book Service, Delhi, 1977.
10. Achtemeier, Paul J. (Ed.), Harper's Bible Dictionery, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore, 1990.
11. Konow, S., Kharoshti Inscriptions, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol 2, Pt 1, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, 1991.
12. माथुर विजयेन्द्र कुमार, ऐतिहासिक स्थानावली , राजस्थान हिन्दी ग्रंथ अकादमी , जयपुर १९९० ।
13. Chinese Equivalents of Place Names in India and Environs, Survey of India, Dehradun, 1987.
14. Oak, P.N., World Vedik Heritage, pp 687-698, P.N. Oak, 1984.
15. शर्मा सुरेन्द्र , हिन्दू धर्म और संस्कृति, विष्णु प्रकाशन , पेतलिंग जय , मलेशिया ।
16. Asiatic Researches, Vol 3, pp 369, Cosmo Publications, New Delhi, 1980.
17. शास्त्री माधवाचार्य, हिन्दू कौन, कल्याण-हिन्दू संस्कृति अंक, गोरखपुर, सं २०५० ।

Need to correlate and rationalise Alexandrian, Roman, Sassanian, and Indic Chronology

भारते भातु भारती

Need to Correlate and Rationalise Alexandrian, Roman, Sassanian and Indic Chronology

Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja

William Jones was the first British writer who suggested the identification of Sandracottus of the Alexandrian narratives with Chandragupta of the Maurya dynasty. This suggestion was later used by Max Muller(1) who declared this synchronism as the 'Sheet Anchor of Indian History'. As a corollary of this synchronism, the chronology of both Buddha and Mahavir had to be advanced by sixty years. The Budhist and Jain sources concur on the chronology of the Mauryas. How can both be wrong is a question not answered either by William Jones or Max Muller. Alexander's death was taken to have taken place in 323 B.C.E. (2778 Kali). Indian historians, notably Kota Venkatachalam(2) and Bhagavaddatta(3) challenged this chronology and argued that the chronology of the Puranas differs widely from this synchronism. Bhagvaddatta further argued that Alexander's chronology itself needs to be ascertained first, as there are wide gaps between the Greek accounts on the one hand and the Iranian, Etheopic, Arabic, Jewish and Indian accounts on the other. Bhagvaddatta cites Masudi, a tenth century Muslim writer as quoted by Ernst Herzfeld(4), "The Persians and other nations are at variance regarding the chronology of Alexander, a fact many people forget". It is therefore, necessary to examine the different accounts to see what the differences are and if they are reconcilable.

1. The Greek Account : No contemporary Greek account is available. The earliest writer whose account is available is Diodorus of Sicily (60 B.C.E) Other accounts of Alexander are from Justin, a third century Roman historian, Plutarch of Boeotia (ca 100 A.C.E.), Arrian of Nicomedia (2nd century A.C.E.), and Curtius Rufus, another Roman historian (1st century). These narratives are summarised by Majumdar(5) and McCrindle(6). It is to be noted that these so called "Greek" writers do not really belong to Greece but are from various other countries. Some of these writers write in a dialect called Attic (others write in Latin) and on that basis they are called 'Greek'. But even this dialect was of Greek origin is not certain. This dialect is variously described as belonging to Athens, Ionia, Hellenic world and so on. The pronunciation is uncertain. For the New Testament written in Attic Greek, the Harper's Bible Dictionary says "The exact pronunciation of Ancient Greek sounds is no longer known".(7)

These accounts were written between 300 to 500 years after Alexander. They differ much from one another in details(5) and are mostly biased, favouring Alexander. For all of these reasons their veracity is suspect. As for chronology, none of these accounts uses any era to describe the events. Western writers make much of Greek and Roman sense of history and also make tall claims about Greek astronomical knowledge and the era of Seleucus established in 312 B.C.E. But on the ground there is no evidence of either a critical history or of any use of an era, as is amply clear from all of the above accounts of Alexander. None of these accounts even specifies the time gap between Alexander and the writer. But Arrian8 does use a very primitive tribal system of reckoning which was prevailant in Greece and Rome. This is namimg of the archonship or magistracy to specify the year. For example, Arrian(8) specifies some dates, Philip's death occurred when Pythodemus was Archon of Athens; Darus died when Aristophon was Archon at Athens, battle of Porus and Alexander took place during the Archonship of Hegemon at Athens; Alexander's death took place when Hegesias was Archon at Athens. It is a mystery how these "dates" were converted to the Common Era. Western historians place Alexander's reign between 336 and 323 B.C.E. But it is not clear how these dates can be inferred from "Greek" or "Roman" accounts.

2. The Persian Account: Two major sources of the story of Alexander in Persian literature are 1. Sikandarnama-e-bara of Nizami(9), and 2. Shahnama of Firdausi(10). Here again it is to be noted, as in the "Greek" account, that neither Nizami nor Firdausi use any dates or any era. We cannot therefore, derive exact dates from these accounts. But Firdausi's Shahnama being a story of kings and dynasties, furnishes us with some indications of the relative placement of kings in time. This information is crucial in determining the relative chronology for example, of Alexander and Ardeshir of the Sassanian dynasty. After Sikandar's death, Firdausi relates the history of the dynasty of the Ashkaris or Ashkanis, which he says, endured roughly 200 years. They are called miscellaneous kings or kings of the tribes from not being all of the same race, but derive their name from Ashk, the first of them. Eight names of these miscellaneous kings are recounted, which gives an average of 25 years per reign. Western historians place Ardeshir in 224 A.C.E. By Firdausi's account, 200 years before Ardeshir would work out to roughly 24 A.C.E. (3125Kali) for Alexander. Western accounts place Alexander in 336 to 323 B.C.E. There is thus, a difference of roughly 350 years between the Western and Persian accounts. The results obtained from Persian account find support from Indian sources as well, as we shall see presently.

The obvious question that arises is how have the Western historians worked out the chronology of Ardeshir and how do they fill the gap between Alexander and Ardeshir which according to them works out to 550 years. The Western historians insert an Arsacid dynasty of Parthia between the years 248 B.C.E. and 224 A.C.E., a period of 472 years. From 323 B.C.E. to 248 B.C.E. for a period of 75 years Iran is placed under Seleucid rule. There is no mention of the Ashkanis in the Wesetrn accounts. The Persian accounts on the other hand, do not mention either Seleucid or Parthian rule in Iran. On the face of it, the Shahnama of Firdausi appears to be on firmer ground and does not betray any signs of confusion or deliberate distortion, whereas the Western accounts appear to be confused with regard to Parthian dynasties. Besides, the Western methods of dating are ambiguous as we have noticed above.

Another question that arises is how do we reconcile this new chronology for Alexander with the established (!) Roman chronology. The answer is found in a similar anomaly in the Roman chronology itself as we shall see shortly.

There is one other important difference between the Greek and the Persian accounts which we must take note of. This relates to Alexandrian geography. While the Greek accounts speak of a Macedonian Alexander, the Persian (and other Eastern sources) call him 'Rumi'. This Rum is neither Greece nor Rome. It is located in central Anatolia (Turkey) and western Syria. The well known Sufi Saint Jalaluddin Rumi belomged to Rum. The capital of Rum as mentioned in Shahnama was 'Amuria'. Thus, as per Firdausi (and all Eastern sources), Alexander was not a European at all, but belonged to Rum in Anatolia. The prefix 'Al' in Alexander's name itself points to a middle eastern origin.

'Greece' as a name of a country never occurs in Eastern accounts. 'Yunan' of Eastern accounts is translated as 'Greece'. It is not clear why in the Eastern accounts the name 'Greece' is not used if that is what is meant by 'Yunan'. This identification of 'Yunan' with 'Greece' raises suspicion and needs investigation.

3. The Indian Sources : There are available a number of notices of Alexander's invasion in Indian literature. Since our main interest relates to chronology, we shall deal with one source that furnishes us with a date. James Tod(11) in his treatment of 'Annals of Jaisalmer', relates the story about Sikandar Rumi attacking the fort of Ghazni which belonged to Raja Gaja Singh Bhatti. This Ghazni is not the well known place of that name in Afghanistan, but it appears from the narrative that it was on the sea shore. The attack was repulsed and the Shah Sikandar Rumi and his army fled. Raja Gaja Singh married a princess from Kashmir who bore him a son named Salbhan. When Salbhan was 12 years of age, Shah Sikandar Rumi attacked again and this time was successful in capturing Gazni and Raja Gaja Singh was killed.

The above narrative is strikingly similar to that of Alexander's capture of Gaza which was defended by one Batis (Bhatti?) who along with his men fought to the last. Batis was captured and tortured to death. The Greek accounts do state that Alexander was beaten back thrice before in the fourth attempt he was successful. There is no mention of a thirteen years gap, but other details are strikingly similar. Gaza is placed by Western historians on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. But as pointed out above, the geographical data of the Greek accounts needs to be re-evaluated.

Tod's narrative adds that Prince Salbhan was on a pilgrimage to Jwalamukhi at the time. When the tidings of the fatal event reached him, he at length reached the Punjab where he laid the foundation of a city which he named Salbhanpur (Shalikot or Sialkot). This was on the 8th of Bhadrapad, Samvat 72, corresponding to Kali 3116. This date would place Sikandar Rumi roughly in 15 A.C.E. which agrees closely with 24 A.C.E derived from the Persian account.

This chronology finds support from the Skanda Puran(12), which states,

ततः त्रिषु सहस्रेषु शतेनापि अधिकेषु च ।
शकोनाम भाविष्यश्च सोऽति दारिद्र्यहारक ॥

"In the Kali year 3100 (1B।C।E।), a tyrant by name Shaka will descend". This tyrant is named 'Shaka' i.e. Shakendra or Sikandar. Alberuni(13) describes this Shaka thus, "This Shaka tyrannised over this country between the river Sindh and the ocean….he interdicted the Hindus from considering themselves as anything but shaka….Hindus had much to suffer from him, till at last they received help from the east when Vikramaditya marched against him, put him to flight and killed him in the region of Karur, between Multan and the castle of Luni. This date became famous as people rejoiced in the news of the death of the tyrant , and was used as the epoch of the era of Shaka." This description would place the death of Sikandar in Kali 3179 (78 A.C.E.).

4. Roman Chronology : As in the case of Greek chronology, the roman chronology also is devoid of any real historical basis. There is no archaeoligical, literary or numismatic evidence to support the established(?) Roman chronology. There are glaring discrepancies between what is claimed and what is seen on the ground. For example it is said that Augustus established a new era from 28 B.C.E., but there are no inscriptions or documents extant using this era. The Roman coins are not dated. Thus thre is no evidence of any era being used. Roman historians too do not use any era. One reason for this could be the cumbersome Roman numeral system. To overcome this difficulty, by the late fourth century documents were being dated according to a 15-year cycle of the induction. Regnal year of the Emperor was also used. As in the case of Greek historians, Romans too used the primitive method of dating by naming the year after the Consul currently in office. For example it is said that Augustus was born during the consulate of M.Tullius Cicero and this year is mysteriously equated to 63 B.C.E. It is said that 'Fasti Capitilini' an inscription containing an official list of the consuls was published by Augustus, using an epoch of 752 B.C.E. for founding of Rome. But such a back calculation can be made only if Augustus' own time is known with certainty.

Dates of Roman emperors from Muslim sources are at variance with Western dates. For example, the Ain-e-Akbari(14) dates Diocletian in 585 A.C.E. while the Western date is 284/85 A.C.E., a difference of 300 years.

5. Chronology of Jesus Christ : The use of the Christain calendar did not begin in 1 A.C.E. In fact the epoch was fixed by Dionysius Exiguus in 525 A.C.E. The Christian Era did not become general in Europe until the 11th century. The length of the year was taken as 365 ¼ days. In 1582 Pope Gregory ordered a reform of the calendar adopting the year of length 365.2425 which closely approximates the tropical year of 365.2422 days. In the new calendar a century year was not a leap year unless divisible by 400. Thus years 100, 200, 300 were not taken as leap years. To correct the accumulated error till 1582, 10 days were dropped. This figure of ten days is telling. If the correction was to be made from 1A.C.E. then 15 century years would have occurred out of which only three (400,800,1200) would be leap years. The correction therefore, should have been of 12 days. Why were only 10 days dropped? Some have tried to argue that the correction was made from the date of the first council of Nicaea (325 A.C.E.). But this argument is not convincing. For the Church, Date of Christ's birth would be of prime importance and the reckoning ought to begin from that date. Besides between 325 and 1582 there are 12 century years out of which three would be leap years, the correction therefore, should have been of nine days. Since the correction made was of ten days, the base year was in the third century. It is significant that earlier, the Church used an epoch from 282 A.C.E. and it seems most likely that the correction was made from this year. This is also evident from the fact that the year of correction was 1582 exactly 1300 years from the epoch. It would be therefore, reasonable to conclude that, since the year of Christ's birth was of prime importance to the Church, this year 282 was in fact that year.

Conclusion : In all the three cases discussed above, the Greek, the Roman, and the Christian chronology, there appears to be a uniform error of roughly three hundred years. There is evidence that suggests that the year of Christ's birth was 282 A.C.E. The Western chronology therefore, needs to be adjusted accordingly.

References

1. Max Muller F., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, Allahabad 1859.
2. Kota Venkatachela P., Chronology of Ancient Hindu History, Pt. 1, Vijaywada, 1957.
३. भगवद्दत्त , भारतवर्ष का बृहत् इतिहास ,भाग १, पृष्ठ २९९-३००, देहली , संवत २००८ ।
4. Herzfeld, Ernst., Zoraster and His World, 1947, p.13.
5. Majumdar, R.C., The Classical Accounts of India, Calcutta, 1981.
6. McCrindle, J.W., The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, Patna, 1989.
7. Achtemeier, P.J. (Ed), Harper's Bible Dictionary, p360,Bangalore, 1990.
8. Chinnock, E.J. (Tr), The Anabasis of Alexander, Dehradun, 1977.
9. Clark, H.W. (Tr), The Sikandar Nama E Bara, New Delhi, 1979.
10. Levy, R. (Tr), The Epic of the Kings- Shah Nama of Firdausi, London, 1967.
11. Tod, James., Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan V2, p175-77, New Delhi., 1978.
12. Skanda Purana 1/2/40/54.
13. Sachau, E.C. (Ed), Alberuni's India, vol II, p6-7, Delhi, 1993.
14. Blochmann, H. (Tr), The A-In-I Akbari, Vol II, p25, Delhi, 1989.